I've gone back and forth on this particular issue so many times.
747Ag said:dargscisyhp said:747Ag said:747Ag said:Physical death while spiritually dead merits damnation.747Ag said:Spiritual death.747Ag said:Mortal sin.747Ag said:
Fornication.
Sounds boring.
Joe Boudain said:I think the chances of that happening are extremely slim which is I'm not worried about being charged with a suspected abortion regardless of what happens in the future. Reasonable suspicion is reasonable suspicion and miscarrying does not reach that standard, nor do I believe it reasonable for you to worry that it would.larry culpepper said:I'm sorry to hear that.Joe Boudain said:We do have funerals for miscarriages. Absolutely. I consider myself to have 5 children even though I only have 2 living. Anyone who doesn't is only doing so to hide the pain.larry culpepper said:I don't feel bad about pulling the rich Republican card because it's true. I'm not saying you are included in that group, but if their woman needs an abortion they'll get it for them as they always have. This affects low and middle income women. And I'm picking on Republicans because they vote for and pass these types of laws.dermdoc said:Really man. Bad bull.larry culpepper said:Because of how extreme the new law is, yes it absolutely is about these extreme circumstances. Rape, incest, fetal deformities where the mother knows the baby wont survive outside the womb. Extreme situations that no one ever wants to be put in, that cause a world of pain for the mother. This is why I believe abortion should be legal. And it's why I think laws that completely disregard these situations and add to the pain, are evil.dermdoc said:
Again with all due respect, they can still get an bottom until the heartbeat which I believe is six months, correct?
However horrid rape is, that is not what this is about.
This is about limiting abortion for convenience which is the vast majority of abortions. And consensual sex not rape.
Yes I am aware people get abortions for convenience. If you don't like that, fine. I don't like it either. But I have read up enough on this to know that making them self-administer illegal abortions isn't the answer either. I have always advocated for solutions that actually lower unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions, such as comprehensive education and wider access to contraceptives that have PROVEN to work in other states and countries that have taken that approach.
But for some reason we keep harping on making abortion illegal, which when it all boils down to it just makes it illegal for low income women. Rich Republican men will always find a way to get their girlfriends, wives, and mistresses an abortion.
There are so many straw men in your post it is difficult to discuss. We have rape victims and congenital problems which are a minuscule part of the abortion equation as you know.
Then the "rich, Republican card? C'mon man. No need for stooping to this kind of caricature.
It all comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder as I do. If you do not think it is murder then everything becomes relative.
Abortion is by far the most controversial subject in American political discourse and will continue to be for a long time. I do not believe that it is murder in the first trimester. I am not sure about the early stages of the second. And I think society agrees with me on that. We do not count them on the census, we do not have funerals for miscarriages, and we do not arrest and prosecute women who miscarry or have a period that contains fertilized eggs (though with Greg Abbott as governor this can never be ruled out).
We can downplay these "rare" situations all you want but they are absolutely relevant when the laws we pass do not provide exceptions for them.
And I'm glad no one sued you or your wife for any of those 3 miscarriages as suspected abortions, which they can do under this new Texas law. They can sue both her and you for aiding and abetting an abortion. Even if you didn't have one, they could have reasonable suspicion you did. Then you are tied up in a legal battle, spending money on lawyers while you are going through an incredibly painful family situation and dealing with an evil, malicious bully who wants some money from you because you might have aborted one of those babies, even though you didn't. There's a chance they could convince a jury you did, though. Then you're on the hook for $10k plus their attorney's fees.
I'm so glad that didn't happen to you. That would have been so evil to put you through that.
Tempest in a teapot. I've never heard of The Daily Beast, but i'm going to take the article at face value and note that the gentlemen refrenced in the article correctly states that they're monitoring the abortion clinics and they're employees to ensure that they're not doing abortions, and not hunting down miscarrying mothers.Macarthur said:Joe Boudain said:I think the chances of that happening are extremely slim which is I'm not worried about being charged with a suspected abortion regardless of what happens in the future. Reasonable suspicion is reasonable suspicion and miscarrying does not reach that standard, nor do I believe it reasonable for you to worry that it would.larry culpepper said:I'm sorry to hear that.Joe Boudain said:We do have funerals for miscarriages. Absolutely. I consider myself to have 5 children even though I only have 2 living. Anyone who doesn't is only doing so to hide the pain.larry culpepper said:I don't feel bad about pulling the rich Republican card because it's true. I'm not saying you are included in that group, but if their woman needs an abortion they'll get it for them as they always have. This affects low and middle income women. And I'm picking on Republicans because they vote for and pass these types of laws.dermdoc said:Really man. Bad bull.larry culpepper said:Because of how extreme the new law is, yes it absolutely is about these extreme circumstances. Rape, incest, fetal deformities where the mother knows the baby wont survive outside the womb. Extreme situations that no one ever wants to be put in, that cause a world of pain for the mother. This is why I believe abortion should be legal. And it's why I think laws that completely disregard these situations and add to the pain, are evil.dermdoc said:
Again with all due respect, they can still get an bottom until the heartbeat which I believe is six months, correct?
However horrid rape is, that is not what this is about.
This is about limiting abortion for convenience which is the vast majority of abortions. And consensual sex not rape.
Yes I am aware people get abortions for convenience. If you don't like that, fine. I don't like it either. But I have read up enough on this to know that making them self-administer illegal abortions isn't the answer either. I have always advocated for solutions that actually lower unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions, such as comprehensive education and wider access to contraceptives that have PROVEN to work in other states and countries that have taken that approach.
But for some reason we keep harping on making abortion illegal, which when it all boils down to it just makes it illegal for low income women. Rich Republican men will always find a way to get their girlfriends, wives, and mistresses an abortion.
There are so many straw men in your post it is difficult to discuss. We have rape victims and congenital problems which are a minuscule part of the abortion equation as you know.
Then the "rich, Republican card? C'mon man. No need for stooping to this kind of caricature.
It all comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder as I do. If you do not think it is murder then everything becomes relative.
Abortion is by far the most controversial subject in American political discourse and will continue to be for a long time. I do not believe that it is murder in the first trimester. I am not sure about the early stages of the second. And I think society agrees with me on that. We do not count them on the census, we do not have funerals for miscarriages, and we do not arrest and prosecute women who miscarry or have a period that contains fertilized eggs (though with Greg Abbott as governor this can never be ruled out).
We can downplay these "rare" situations all you want but they are absolutely relevant when the laws we pass do not provide exceptions for them.
And I'm glad no one sued you or your wife for any of those 3 miscarriages as suspected abortions, which they can do under this new Texas law. They can sue both her and you for aiding and abetting an abortion. Even if you didn't have one, they could have reasonable suspicion you did. Then you are tied up in a legal battle, spending money on lawyers while you are going through an incredibly painful family situation and dealing with an evil, malicious bully who wants some money from you because you might have aborted one of those babies, even though you didn't. There's a chance they could convince a jury you did, though. Then you're on the hook for $10k plus their attorney's fees.
I'm so glad that didn't happen to you. That would have been so evil to put you through that.
Already set up a website.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-antiabortion-groups-already-getting-tip-offs-about-potential-law-violations-says-report
Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.larry culpepper said:
It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.
But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.
There are quite a few loopholes in the law as I explained earlier. In addition to being an awful law it's very poorly written. Try addressing points instead of just attempting to shut down with one liner "gotchas"Joe Boudain said:Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.larry culpepper said:
It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.
But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.
Our species is far more barbaric and primitive than we would like to admit. Our country being chief regarding this matter.Joe Boudain said:
Very saddening how such a thing as ripping a baby out of the place where it should feel the most love and safety in the world, and killing it, is a laughing matter to some.
I'm not attempting a gotcha, it's not a gotcha to say you were acting like vigilantes were going to be able to sue women who had miscarriages for "not showing anymore", and then admitted you had misunderstood the law.larry culpepper said:There are quite a few loopholes in the law as I explained earlier. In addition to being an awful law it's very poorly written. Try addressing points instead of just attempting to shut down with one liner "gotchas"Joe Boudain said:Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.larry culpepper said:
It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.
But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.
Under the text of the law, women technically can be sued for self administering.Joe Boudain said:I'm not attempting a gotcha, it's not a gotcha to say you were acting like vigilantes were going to be able to sue women who had miscarriages for "not showing anymore", and then admitted you had misunderstood the law.larry culpepper said:There are quite a few loopholes in the law as I explained earlier. In addition to being an awful law it's very poorly written. Try addressing points instead of just attempting to shut down with one liner "gotchas"Joe Boudain said:Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.larry culpepper said:
It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.
But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.
Now you're talking about fathers raping daughters to collect $10k, and are asking me to address points.
Joe Boudain said:
I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.
Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.
As Kurt said, how you see it is pretty irrelevant to the point he made.Joe Boudain said:
I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.
Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.
kurt vonnegut said:
I'm sure that the law will lead to some abuse, but I think the more important discussion is what the law means, what it does and is intended to do and not how 'tightly' it was written. I suspect you'll find plenty of pro-lifers that disagree with how the vigilante incentives are laid out in the bill.
Abortion is something that has been discussed and allowed by the SCOTUS and there is plenty of precedent for its legality. The bill nearly makes Roe V Wade inapplicable in Texas. Although I understand that is the appeal for many on the right, its a clear attempt to allow Texas to pick and choose which laws, rights, or SC decisions it wants to follow. The law doesn't regulate abortion. It makes it as close to impossible as they thought they could get away with. And the SCOTUS was well aware of it and decided to not defend an obvious infringement on legal precedent based on political affiliation. I think this is all a bad sign for everyone with enough foresight to look beyond their short term political goals.
This law isn't about reducing abortion numbers. Its about control of women. Pure and simple. There are ways to reduce abortion and conservatives really don't care. In many cases, they block those efforts whenever they can. The pendulum is going to swing left. It already has. And Republicans seem to think the solution is to just keep pushing up the pendulum on their side giving it more potential energy in its swing.
We don't incentivize reporting other crimes in the same manner. With few exceptions, no one gets paid to provide evidence in a murder or rape or other crime. The $10k bounty offered for abortion makes it clear that for the Republican law makers in Texas, this isn't about law and order. Its about sanctimony and righteous retribution. Its emotional and its self righteous.
Imagine if California passed a law outlawing assault rifles and then offered a $10k bounty for anyone who turned in someone who owned an assault rifle. Conservatives would lose their damned minds. And they'd be right to do so. . . . but somehow its okay when they agree with the bill in question.
It's one of the few crimes that is currently legal. They have to do this sort of thing to make it illegal. That doesn't make sense?kurt vonnegut said:Joe Boudain said:
I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.
Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.
That does not address the question of why abortion is the only crime that gets this $10k bounty.
Conservatives that say that are picking and choosing which laws they think they need to follow.
Agree 100%. It is always a bunch of wealthy men passing these laws. Who have no idea what it's like to be pregnant, much less the result of rape. There are some women who support it too but they are a clear minority.Quote:
This law isn't about reducing abortion numbers. Its about control of women. Pure and simple. There are ways to reduce abortion and conservatives really don't care. In many cases, they block those efforts whenever they can. The pendulum is going to swing left. It already has. And Republicans seem to think the solution is to just keep pushing up the pendulum on their side giving it more potential energy in its swing.
110% agree. I mentioned this on the politics board, and i'll do so again. This law isn't about actually stopping abortion, but more so to satisfy a vindictive desire to punish women who seek abortions. If the GOP was actually serious about this they would look at the data to see what has been proven to result in decreased abortions. They are absolutely unwilling to do so.Quote:
We don't incentivize reporting other crimes in the same manner. With few exceptions, no one gets paid to provide evidence in a murder or rape or other crime. The $10k bounty offered for abortion makes it clear that for the Republican law makers in Texas, this isn't about law and order. Its about sanctimony and righteous retribution. Its emotional and its self righteous.
taking away a person's bodily autonomy is a very bad thing. And ask Sandy Hook parents if the gun that killed their children is a 'good thing'.RebelE Infantry said:
Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.
I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?
RebelE Infantry said:
Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.
I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?
RebelE Infantry said:
Bodily autonomy? What about the baby's bodily autonomy? Or are you one of those depraved people who see the child as a parasite?
Guns possess no agency. The murderer killed those poor children.
RebelE Infantry said:
Bodily autonomy? What about the baby's bodily autonomy? Or are you one of those depraved people who see the child as a parasite?
Guns possess no agency. The murderer killed those poor children.
larry culpepper said:
I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.
I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.